"STAND YOUR GROUND"--IS IT A GOOD LAW??

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I understand. IS it a good law?
I didn't know that, after passing the law in Fla, that homicides tripled.

Kinda liberal there (i.e., deviant),
in your interpretation of Rocky 's post, huh, farmer??
The caption said JUSTIFIABLE homicides,
which includes capital punishments in prisons and police in gunfights,
as well as personal defense by innocent citizens (like Zimmy, except that he supported Obama).

farmerman wrote:

Certainly not an indication that weve become a more civilized country.

Your definition of a "civilized country"
is one without justified homicide, one infers.

Hence, NO country in the history of the Earth
has ever been "civilized", according to the farmer.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Your definition of a "civilized country"
is one without justified homicide, one infers

Why should a rising body count. no matter the circumstances, be something to celebrate??

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

it is very popular among the nun guts here.

What is Rocky implying here ??
It sounds like he tells us that proper bravery
requires an American citizen to wait until
a predator has succeeded in getting the advantage over him
(like Pearl Harbor) before he begins any defensive measures.

(Upon the basis of my experience, I deem it wise
to put your hand on your gun (without bringing it into vu),
if u discern a predatory emergency. Sometimes, speed counts.

Rockhead wrote:

I personally find it offensive...

Yeah, the bad guy might get hurt, right?
Liberals favor the low life, including the demographics of muggers.
I disagree. I wonder how many liberals wud change their minds,
if thay found themselves in predatory emergencies.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

No. It is clearly not a good law...
unless we start arming 17 year old Black kids.

Whatayamean??
I had to arm MYSELF, when I was 8. No one gave me a free gun.

Let them get their own.

Incidentally, he already had one (tho not with him),
judging by pictures on his cell fone. It looked like a little .25 caliber automatic.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

As usual, youre full of **** DAVE. Liberals can also believe in self defense. Its just that a higher standard of when deadly force can be used needs to be in force.
Youre map that showed "Deadly Force Laws" I other states needs to be better understood. Its just a dumass graphic that tries to smoosh all these state laws into one category. Several States, like Pa, require the assailant to also have a gun and to have it being brandished before considering justifiability of the use of deadly force. Fla and TExas (and Louisiana0 seem to be unique in having laws where precognition to danger is a justifiable cause to blow someone away. Other

Stop being such a Limbaugh clone by making this a stupid issue where your anarchic fellows merely want to engage in name calling (A name which, I don't mind , its just that you fail to accurately xpound on its real meaning in conversation, for you its merely a default position for a silly argument)

2 Replies

People who think a liberal will not defend him/her self overlook that liberals serve in the military and often keep weapons for self defense. If a person were to attack me or my family with deadly intent I would do what I had to to prevent that happening. SYG laws, as written and practiced, in some states, are not the answer.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Liberals can also believe in self defense.

Thay CAN; thay seldom DO.
John Dingle, a liberal & the most senior Democrat in the House
sat on the NRA Board of Directors for many years.
That sort of freedom-loving is almost un-heard of among Democrats,
tho many of them lie about supporting the 2nd Amendment.

farmerman wrote:

Its just that a higher standard of when deadly force can be used needs to be in force.

Yeah; wait until u have been slaughtered,
to protect the bloody predator.

farmerman wrote:

Youre map that showed "Deadly Force Laws" I other states needs to be better understood.

Its Rocky 's map.
I just enjoyed it.

farmerman wrote:

Its just a dumass graphic that tries to smoosh all these state laws into one category. Several States, like Pa, require the assailant to also have a gun and to have it being brandished before considering justifiability of the use of deadly force. Fla and TExas (and Louisiana0 seem to be unique in having laws where precognition to danger is a justifiable cause to blow someone away. Other

farmerman wrote:

Stop being such a Limbaugh clone
by making this a stupid issue where your anarchic fellows [WHO??]
merely want to engage in name calling

I neither support nor disown him.
He means nothing to me.
I accept maybe 60 or 70% of what he says (so far as I know).
I don't ofen listen to him. I don't necessarily enjoy his show.
I gave him a book once. He said: "it will be read."
I support personal freedom and I disdain government
more than I have known him to do. Rush is not libertarian enuf for my taste.

farmerman wrote:

(A name which, I don't mind , its just that you fail to accurately xpound on its real meaning in conversation,
for you its merely a default position for a silly argument)

A liberal is someone who DEVIATES
from some designated (perhaps implied) criterion,
rather than remaining steadfastly loyal to the said criterion;
e.g., Rudolf Hess was a liberal in that he deviated
from the official war policy when he flew to Scotland to negotiate a truce.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

That sort of freedom-loving is almost un-heard of among Democrats,
tho many of them lie about supporting the 2nd Amendment.

YOU are the lying sack of ****.
There are as many hunters and gun owners among liberals as there are among non liberals. There is no compelling order to own and brandish guns.
The doomsday preppers and the truly gun nuts nitwithstanding. Mot of thse are on the "R" side of the aisle.

If you just vapidly enjoy staring at a map without trying to understand what it says, that's not my fault.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
Somehow Oralloy and Gunga want to argue that this tox screen couldn't detect other drugs that they seem to think Martin used or was actually on at the time of his death.

Nonsense. Where did I ever argue that it couldn't?

All I've done is ask if anyone knows whether the tox screening did cover Dextromethorphan?

Clearly the answer to my question is: "No. No one on a2k has this information."

Because they didn't find it in the tox screen is evidence by you that they didn't screen for it? You do have some pretty big fantasies there. Now you will claim you didn't lie even though anyone can clearly see you aren't telling the factual truth.

FM DID give you the answer as to whether they tested for it. You just seem to not have understood it.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

DAVID wrote:

That sort of freedom-loving is almost un-heard of among Democrats,
tho many of them lie about supporting the 2nd Amendment.

farmerman wrote:

YOU are the lying sack of ****.

NO good comes from lying; its pointless futility.
It has happened over and over again
that during elective campaigning, Democrat candidates
emotionally swear up and down and beg for our credence
that thay are avid supporters of the 2nd Amendment,
as much as their Republican opponents, and then,
after their word has been accepted thay have VETOED
pro-freedom gun related legislation.
Thay have betrayed our confidence enuf times
for us to know the folly of trusting them.

farmerman wrote:

There are as many hunters and gun owners among liberals as there are among non liberals.

The issue at hand is self defense,
not hunting, as the USSC correctly recognized in HELLER.
If what u posted were true,
then NRA meetings wud be rife with liberals; thay r not.

farmerman wrote:

There is no compelling order to own and brandish guns.

Thay r defensive emergency equipment;
i.e., thay r matters of life and death.

I did not mean to "brandish" mine, after I was shot at,
but thay departed hence when my own gun came out, b4 I cud line up a shot.
What u said is like my posting that there is no compelling order
to own or carry spare tires nor health insurance
(neither of which is explicitly defended by the Supreme Law of the Land).

David

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The NRA sounds and acts like they represent moderate civil rights activists.

Im a lifelong gun owner and the NRA does NOT speak for me the way they are presently constituted.

Yes, but you are a dedicated opponent of civil rights and American freedom.

farmerman wrote:

Ever since the LaPierre and Heston days, they've become an arm of the gun industry and the GOP extreme right wing. That's a FACT Jack.

No, that's an outright lie. You know very well that what you just said isn't true.

farmerman wrote:

I remember when the NRA was primarily about sportsmen and gun safety in the field. When they began speaking for a political party and were heavily financing anti reasonable gun laws, they became a mere special interest group that turned off many gun owners and hunters.

They only turned off the ones who hate freedom and civil rights.

The rest of us don't think freedom and civil rights are unreasonable.

farmerman wrote:

(The LAw Enforcement agencies of the US are mostly spokesmen against the NRA's extreme positions.

No they aren't.

And there is nothing extreme about the NRA's support of civil rights.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

PS, if its facts you want, so do I. Where is the evidence about Martin being stoned

Where's your cite of me saying he was stoned when he assaulted Mr. Zimmerman?

farmerman wrote:

or conclusively evidenced to be going to get stoned??

I provided that conclusive evidence on page 6, in message #5,404,388.
http://able2know.org/topic/218540-6#post-5404388

farmerman wrote:

I like that you are your appealing to logic for all others but you ignore its lacking in your own discourses.

Your refusal to accept the facts that I posted does not mean I am lacking logic in any way.

farmerman wrote:

I hear a lot of nyah nyah from you when things aren't swallowed hook and line.

No. When you refuse to accept reality, I seldom voice any objection.

When you try to justify your refusal to accept reality by launching ad hominem lies about me, I do make a small effort to defend myself, but that defense does not involve anything that could be characterized as "nyah nyah".

Normally I just continue to point out the truth, and the defense happens automatically in the course of me telling the truth.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Seems that the Stand your Ground LAws may interfere with your 1st Amendment Rights in certain states.

Nonsense.

farmerman wrote:

Most of the Anarchist Gun freaks don't really give a **** about anyone other than themselves

You may as well accept that you won't be allowed to destroy our Constitution.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
Somehow Oralloy and Gunga want to argue that this tox screen couldn't detect other drugs that they seem to think Martin used or was actually on at the time of his death.

Nonsense. Where did I ever argue that it couldn't?

All I've done is ask if anyone knows whether the tox screening did cover Dextromethorphan?

Clearly the answer to my question is: "No. No one on a2k has this information."

Because they didn't find it in the tox screen is evidence by you that they didn't screen for it?

Don't be silly.

parados wrote:

You do have some pretty big fantasies there.

Note that it was your fantasy about me saying that.

parados wrote:

Now you will claim you didn't lie

Thank you for the suggestion.

I told the absolute truth, just as I always do.

Some of your suggestions are a bit silly, but that there was a good one.

parados wrote:

even though anyone can clearly see you aren't telling the factual truth.

Feel free to try to point out any errors in anything I've said.

Please understand that "things you imagine that I say" don't count. Only "things that I actually do say" count.

parados wrote:

FM DID give you the answer as to whether they tested for it. You just seem to not have understood it.

I understood completely. But Farmerman is also dodging facts and spewing lies about me to cover for it, so I gave his claim limited credibility from the start.

And on top of that, Farmerman was concocting outright falsehoods about Dextromethorphan. And since those falsehoods were the key to his answer, his entire answer was bogus.

What I was asking for was an accurate answer, given by someone with credibility.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

As usual, youre full of **** DAVE.

No, OmSigDAVID is always truthful, and his post there was no exception.

farmerman wrote:

Liberals can also believe in self defense.

But unfortunately only a few of them do.

farmerman wrote:

Several States, like Pa, require the assailant to also have a gun and to have it being brandished before considering justifiability of the use of deadly force.

That is unlikely.

farmerman wrote:

Fla and TExas (and Louisiana) . . . laws where precognition to danger is a justifiable cause to blow someone away.

That is also unlikely.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

SYG laws, as written and practiced, in some states, are not the answer.

Your recent failed attempt against our Constitution should be used as a learning experience.

Obama's wasting all of his political capital in a childish tantrum against the NRA has prevented him from achieving anything in his second term, and that will hand the White House to the Republicans in 2016.

If you guys try to double down on your failure, you'll only be defeated twice as hard come election day.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

YOU are the lying sack of ****.

No, OmSigDAVID was telling the truth, just as he always does.

farmerman wrote:

There are as many hunters and gun owners among liberals as there are among non liberals.

Yes, but most of them hate our freedom and want to do away with the Constitution.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Yes, but most of them hate our freedom and want to do away with the Constitution

You must have had your head shrunk by the same Bullshit Talk Show Host that has gotten to Daves head.

ACTUALLY you are the ones who wish to do away with the Constitution one step at a time. In many 's estimation, the SYG laws(where a killer gets a free pass by invoking a "I was being threatened" clause), are stomping on my FIRST AMENDMENT, FIFTH AMENDMENT< AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS by Misapplying the SECOND.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Ourtright LIES by oralloy..

oralloy wrote:

That "unarmed kid" was possibly high on dissociative hallucinogens

FACT - based on the post mortem tox screen it is NOT possible that he was high on any hallucinogen.

Quote:

was carrying ingredients to brew even more dissociative hallucinogens,

Also a lie. Nothing Martin was carried could brew a hallucinogen.
FACT - Skittles and Iced Tea do not create any type of hallucinogen.

Quote:

No, not Meth. Meth is relatively sane compared to the "Poor Man's PCP" that Trayvon was brewing for himself.

There is no evidence that Trayvon was brewing this. Another LIE on your part. The TOX screen shows no such thing was in his system.

Quote:

Trying to save his neighbors from being massacred by a drug addled thug is about the exact opposite of what a sociopath is.

Another Oralloy LIE. Martin was not about to massacre anyone and wasn't on drugs at the time of his death. Zimmerman also never claimed that was his intent.

Quote:

Had Trayvon gotten all hopped up on Angel Dust and then broken into a house that happened to have a family at home at the time, the entire family probably would have been slaughtered.

This statement was after you explained that LEAN wasn't PCP. Which was it oralloy? Was he on LEAN or PCP? Or are both your scenarios LIES that have no basis in reality?

Quote:

I accused him of planning to get high on very dangerous drugs and then go break into other people's houses.

Another LIE since there were no drugs on Martin.

Quote:

And I provided evidence that Trayvon was going to brew those Skittles into a concoction of "Poor Man's PCP".

Except that is ALSO a lie. You have provided no evidence of any DXM in Martin's possession. Without DXM there is no evidence he was going to brew any "Poor Man's PCP". His texts from 8 months earlier are not evidence of him having DXM in his possession on that night.

Quote:

No, I said he was going to get high on "Poor Man's PCP", using "Poor Man's PCP".

Yes, you did say that but after you said he was "possibly high". Denial on your part.

Quote:

Precursors?? He was not brewing Dextromethorphan. He was using Dextromethorphan that was already made.

And how exactly was he doing that when he had NO dxm? You seem to think your LIE somehow means there was dxm somewhere. Just lies by you, one after another and then more lies to try to support or deny your earlier lies.

2 Replies

@parados,

The more I read, the more I believe that oralloy is some 14 year old precocious kid. He has often drug up opinions but, where he loses it, is in the evidence. He concludes that his own gearsay is actual evidence.
I said bfore, had oral been anywhere near a stand one behalf of Zimmerman, he would have been torn a new one and even been considered to have been suborning perjury on behalf of the defense.

1 Reply

"STAND YOUR GROUND"--IS IT A GOOD LAW??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know